ESPACIOS Y ACTORES PARA EL APRENDIZAJE DE LA CIENCIA Y LA TECNOLOGÍA

In this study, blended learning is defined as: educational experiences delivered through the thoughtful combination of face-to-face and online activities. Herein Place and Technology relate to face-to-face and online learning environment, Design relates to thoughtful combination between these two environments. The concepts in the dimensions were operationalized into theoretical propositions and are concluded on in this chapter by means of the cross-case analysis as presented in chapter 6.2. The TP’s are provided with a coloured backdrop. The backdrops indicate whether the TP is confirmed (green), there are mixed results (yellow), or the TP is contradicted (red). The purpose of the TP’s is to provide empirical evidence to the theoretical findings. The empirical evidence for each TP is outlined under each statement.

General TP: blended learning is the future in learning.

All BL Experts have expereriency with applying BL in professional environments. The BL Experts recognize the additional ways of learning inherent to BL and consider this a needed development. They mention that face-to-face time is used much more effectively in BL, since the theory part is already sorted. Additionally, one BL Expert mentioned ‘face-to-face learning took too much time and did not deliver’, this is a general consensus in between the BL Experts. Summarizing, the BL Experts all think BL combines the best of the online environment and face-to-face learning. They do stress workplace learning, collaboration, interactivity, and acknowledging that every learning situation is different, is key. Only then BL functions better than past learning methods, therefore the TP is coloured yellow, since there are many factors reliant on the functioning of BL.

Technology TP: administering theory and practices only through online platforms is not enough, face-to-face learning is needed.

Empirical evidence indicates that the organisational learning need cannot be satisfied by just by e- learning. Arguments for this is that professional development training is not possible through e- learning, without classrooms no practise can take place (deepening of knowledge). E-learning cannot keep up with the real world, and the trainer/teacher is needed to facilitate the learning process (also in the online environment). One BL Expert mentioned ‘seeing face-to-face and being able to discuss is just too valuable to ignore’, which encapsulates the general dispositions to face- to-face learning of all BL Experts. Furthermore, the general consensus between the BL Experts is that in BL the trainer is the most important part of technology, not the online environment. This empirical evidence suggests that face-to-face learning is still relevant.

31 Technology TP: instructional media should be compatible with the LMS of

customers.

With the possible introduction of a platform by Explainit, the empirical evidence suggests there should be compatibility with the LMS the customer is using. Most LMS’s operate languages such as LTI or SCORM for their background processes, therefore there is almost always a possibility to link learning systems to each other. Furthermore, requirements such as user friendliness, personalization, collaboration, and customizability are all asked of the LMS.

Place TP: understanding and remembering of theory should be performed online, whereas applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating theory is best

performed face-to-face.

The empirical evidence is in line with the theory of flipped learning, the BL Experts answered unanimously. Theory (knowledge) should be instructed through asynchronous online learning activities, thus fulfilling the Remembering and Understanding blocks of Bloom’s taxonomy. However, the online environment must stand in connection with the face-to-face activities. The face-to-face environment should be used for knowledge deepening activities, collaboration, practising—not for giving lectures. The face-to-face environment can be divided into classroom activities and workplace learning. The Applying and Analysing phases of Bloom’s taxonomy are best served in class, given that classrooms are a controlled environment, newly gained knowledge can be harmlessly put into practise. The latter stages of Evaluating and Creating are best served through workplace learning, which enables learners to implement what was learned in the ‘real world’, and to in the end innovate their field of expertise. Admittedly, understanding and remembering can be performed online, one BL Expert mentioned that higher stages can also be performed online, these higher stages depend on collaboration of learners, a LMS that facilitates this would then be required.

Place TP: shifting a part of the training from face-to-face to online helps reduce costs for companies, in part due to a lowered seat time.

Empirical evidence suggests that BL is easier to organize than other learning methods, however, that does not necessarily mean BL reduces organisational costs. There is a notion that existing costs shift to other places. Before, the employee (learner) had to be away for an extended time from their workplace, now more effort is put in creating good BL programmes. This evidence postulates that lowered seat time for employees is a perceived concept in the workplace, but it does not necessarily lower organisational costs.

Design TP: creating social presence early in the training is essential to the success of blended learning.

32 There is empirical evidence proposing social presence is a great way to form social cohesion, and in so doing fusing the face-to-face and online environment together. However, evidence suggests that such social activities are not always organized in practise, because of work related time pressures; it would be inefficient to organize such activities. To add to this, most of the times learners are colleagues, thus social presence is already existent. For this reason, the TP is coloured yellow, since BL Experts do admit that social presence is a helpful concept fusing the two learning environments together, but it is hard to find time for their learners to organize this.

Design TP: learners have individual learning styles, therefore learning activities that require learner control should be performed online, whereas

interactive learning activities should be performed face-to-face.

There is empirical evidence suggesting learners need freedom (or autonomy) in their learning experience. Freedom herein means learners can choose how they want to learn according to their individual learning style. To add to this, evidence proposes learner control adds to getting better results in learning. A distinction between synchronous and asynchronous activities is made. In asynchronous activities learner control is possible, therefore learners should be able to choose how they want to learn in these activities. The four individual learning styles by Kolb is introduced with the accommodating experiential learning cycle. Only when the individual learning styles are accommodated—Diverging, Assimilating, Converging, Accommodating—BL can work for professionals.

Blend TP: there is no optimal blend in blended learning.

There is substantial empirical evidence for there not being an optimal blend in BL. All BL Experts respond negatively on whether an optimal blend in BL exists. The main reason for this is that every learning situation is different, and learners have individual learning styles, thus the defining factor in BL is the learner itself. Only when the learner can be enthused and motivated to take responsibility over their own learning process BL will reap the benefits. The model presented in figure 3 does not work, since the two sides of the model do not line up. In each situation, different decisions have to be made regarding the face-to-face and online environment, in practise these decisions are seldom the same for both environments.

learning’ takes the BL models by Horn & Staker (2015) and puts the types of environment on the horizontal axis and the way of instruction on the vertical axis. Empirical evidence suggests that these sides of the model do not line up. Given the fact that face-to-face instruction is a synchronous activity and is therefore fixed (with a possible flexible capacity), whereas online instruction is an asynchronous activity and therefore almost always flexible (with a possible fixed element). Empirical evidence suggests learner control increases results in learning and learner control is possible in asynchronous activities. Therefore, model is better represented as decisions one makes in designing a BL training. The decisions are represented in table 11. The table can be used to give background to important initial decisions which have to be taken in designing a BL training. Since this decision model does not represent the BL models by Horn & Staker (2015) it can be concluded that these models do not work for BL in professional development training.

The conceptual framework chapter (3.1) does not make a distinction between classroom- and workplace learning in face-to-face instruction. Empirical evidence suggest that higher stages of learning should be performed through workplace learning, whereas practising acquired knowledge is best performed in classrooms.

Table 11, coming to a blend

Decision Description

Step 1 Is the majority of teaching face-to-face or online?

Step 2 Is the delivery of face-to-face instruction flexible or fixed? Step 3 Is the delivery of online instruction flexible or fixed?

34 From these findings, a table is drawn up which indicates which learning activities are available in the different instructional methods/media. The activities are listed in table 12.

Table 12, learning activities per environment

Instructional media

Instructional methods /

type of activity Learning activities

E-learning Online (asynchronous) (interactive) Video lectures, reading material, practise exercises (quizzes), serious gaming.

Classrooms Face-to-face

(synchronous)

Peer-to-peer discussion and collaboration, giving feedback, presentations, role playing with actors, one- on-one settings.

Workplace learning Face-to-face (synchronous)

Bringing into practise what is learned, apprenticeships, peer-evaluation, intervision.

The table gives an overview of learning activities suitable for professional development training according to the theory and backed by empirical evidence.